BALUNATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In assailing the judgement dated 17-11-1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, learned counsel for the appellant has only made his submissions in so far as the evidence is concerned and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, on the facts and circumstances of the case brought on record, no offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused appellant because it cannot be said that the deceased had died as a result of the injuries allegedly caused by the accused appellant, by sharp edged weapon. On the contrary, it can be said on the basis of material on record that the deceased bad died as a result of profuse bleeding on account of injury No 1 allegedly caused by the accused appellant and injury No. 3 caused by blunt weapon by some person other than the appellant.

(2.) Looking to the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, it is not necessary for us to give the facts of the case in detail and suffice to say that the case relates to the death of one Birbal Nath which took place on 3-6-1989 at about 10-11 a.m. in Village Gudha which is at a distance of about 4 Kms in the North from Police Station Baroni. District Tonk. The case of the prosecution is that Bajranga (PW-1) and Devinath (PW-3) were at their house and one Prahlad is said to have come to the house and told that he (Bajranga) was a very bad man. Bajranga came out of the house. His son Birbal was also standing there. The accused appellant along with Prahlad, Ramjeevan, Ramesh gave beating to Birbal and Bajranga. Accused appellant Balunath had a knife with him and stabbed Birbal in his abdomen and also caused injuries on his band. The deceased Birbal was taken to the hospital. His injuries were examined by Dr. Dinesh Chandra (PW 15) who found that there were three injuries on the person of Birbal deceased (i) incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the left side of abdomen; there was bleeding from injury No. (1); (ii) incised wound 1"x1/2"x1/2" on left side of temporal occipital region, this wound too was bleeding and (iii) contusion 21/2" above wound No. 1. In the opinion of the doctor, injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon whereas injury No 3 was caused by blunt weapon. Birbal died as a result of the injuries caused to him. As per the advice of the doctor, he was shifted to the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. Post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Dinesh Chandra on the dead body of Birbal on 5-6-1989 and the same injuries were noted. On opening the dead-body of Birbal Nath, it was found that spleen was ruptured and was full of blood. In the opinion of the doctor. the deceased died as a result of rupture and breaking of capsule of outer laser of spleen. In the opinion of the doctor, there was hemorrhage and rupture of outer layer of colon upper ⅓rd. The doctor said that all the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injuries has been caused within 24 to 48 hours' duration.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the eye witnesses viz., PW-1 Bajranga, PW-3 Debinath and PW-4 Madho, all have stated that besides the accused appellant, other accused persons who were armed with lathis, have too given beating to the deceased. We have been taken to the evidence of the witnesses and it can be said on the basis of their statements that one Prahlad (accused) who was armed with a lathi is said to have given pushes 'THONSAS' of lathi on the stomach of the deceased Birbal. It would be sufficient to make a reference to the statement of PW-3 Debinath who has stated that Prahlad bad given blows with stone and lathi on the chest and abdomen of Birbal. It has come in the statement of Dr. Dinesh Chandra (PW 15) that injury No. 3 could only be caused by a blunt weapon and not by a sharp edged weapon. It has also come in his statement that injuries No. 1 and 3 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has plainly stated that it was the result of profuse bleeding from injury Nos. 1 and 3 that the deceased died and that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it can therefore not be said that it was the accused appellant who had caused the fatal blow/injury. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that it cannot be said that the accused intended to cause death of the deceased nor by his act, death could be caused. He further contends that it can therefore not be said that the accused appellant intended to cause any injury because the accused did not know that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He therefore contends that the case does not fall under section 302 Indian Penal Code but will fall under section 304 Indian Penal Code. Unless the act of the accused fails under any of the clauses of Sec. 300 Indian Penal Code, it will not be a murder punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code. There is no material on record that there was any enemity between the parties and it has come on record that the incident had taken place all of a sudden. In our opinion, the case of the appellant falls under exception (iv) to Sec. 300 Indian Penal Code. We are therefore of the opinion that the accused is only liable under section 304-I Indian Penal Code.